As
you know, the condemnation hearing regarding the Houston property was on
October 11 and 12, 2011, in Burlington. The session went on for two days, and
there were some salient points that were brought to life that did not make it
into the press. I felt the obligation to call these out to the voting public.
These points are:

1.

1) The town did work
with an engineering firm but did not engage a hydrogeologist to find water for
a town source. Phelps Engineering, the chosen firm, specializes in water source
confirmation and infrastructure. The current pursued water source on Reed Road
was investigated and discovered by Heindel & Noyes, hired by the landowner,
who utilized scientific methods to locate potential water sources in the
pre-development phase. This information was the key source of scientific
information on water source at the Reed Road site.

2. 2) The town did not
utilize the state of Vermont Water Board to get existing data which shows 53 high
yielding wells in excess of 50 to 100-plus gpm (gallons per minute) between
Route 100 and the Houston property. Those wells could possibly yield higher
volumes at greater depths. The Houston well was rated at 180 gpm by a Heindel
and Noyes’ hydrogeologist hired by landowner Houston.

3. 3) Two 100-plus wells
are on Tremblay Road just before the town garage property and test drilling by
Phelps Engineering was not done there.

4. 4) The elementary
school has double the capacity they need yet they signed up for the project
with continuing costs versus the one-time cost of the UV system installed and
nominal maintenance. This contrasts with the annual expense of approximately $12,000
annually to purchase water from the water board instead.

5. 5) Back in the early
1990s when the town was voting on a zoning amendment that would make commercial
water extraction a use by right, the planning commission sent to all voters in
Waitsfield a letter stating water withdrawal for a bottling facility in town
would be “degradation of the character of your neighborhoods through
construction of commercial buildings such as a bottling plant, bottle making
factory and unrestricted water withdrawal which could deplete your water
supply.” This was during a vote to make water extraction a use by right at that
time, but now the town wants unrestricted access for the town. The town has now
reversed that position to suit their own needs.

6. 6) Also in 1994, a
letter from the Mad River Valley Planning District was sent to William
Shouldice, secretary of Development and Community Affairs. It was signed by
Elwin Neill Jr. (Waitsfield Board of Selectmen), Russ Bennett (Waitsfield
Planning Commission) along with others. The letter was sent to Secretary
Shouldice to request he stop any help for the Houston water project stating,
“One out-of-town landowner should not have the power to persuade one
out-of-touch senator” (referring to Senator Matt Krauss). A copy of this letter
was admitted into evidence.

7. 7) Although the town
attorney did not agree, per Houston’s court testimony, the select board said
they would not grant Houston any permits until she granted them water rights.
This included a permit for one home on 1,646 acres in the forest reserve
district where no residential development is permitted above 1,700 feet.

8. 8) There has never been
a problem selling property in the service area because of lack of water,
according to testimony provided by David Dion, a local realtor.

9. 9) During the
condemnation hearing, Houston testified that she was told by a planning
commission member “whoever owns the water has the power and control and if you
make me your partner, all your troubles will go away.” This same testimony was
provided at the first condemnation meeting in town. Houston stated she would
state a name if asked under oath; she was never asked.

1010)The town gave
testimony that no one else had approached them with an offer to extract water.
Yet in 2005/2006, the town offered the Richards’ family a significant payment
for five acres to use for drilling and extraction. That deal fell through. When
the town proceeded with drilling on private property without a signed
agreement, the litigation between the town and the property owners rose to
another level.

All
this was submitted as evidence (where letters were referenced, copies are now
on file). The judge also noted to the town that they were moving ahead with
construction at their own risk as this matter was not settled.

Next
steps are that both sides must prepare a final brief and submit it to the
judge. He will decide. Estimated time is somewhere in December and, of course,
there may be appeals.

It
is true that many missteps and unfortunate events occurred in the past by
people no longer part of our current select board or planning commission. My
question is, “Why are they moving forward adopting a position that is based
upon bad judgment?” We can’t expect them to go back and correct errors from the
past, but adopting a position based on fact and respect for all townspeople
would be a great start. And just how much has really been spent on legal fees
for this?